PITC v COA

14. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION vs. COMMISSION ON AUDIT G.R. No. 152688 November 19, 2003

DOCTRINE: Staple Food Incentive is not a benefit within the ambit of the first sentence of Section 12 of RA 6758 because it was not granted to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. In order that the SFI may be allowed the requisites for the entitlement of benefits must be established. (What I think is the pertinent Admin doctrine) It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutory provisions control the rules and regulations which may be issued pursuant thereto . Such rules

and regulations must be consistent with and must not defeat the purpose of the statute. The validity of R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to depend on the validity of its implementing implementing rules. FACTS: In accordance with DO 79 of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) then Secretary Jose Trinidad Pardo granted, subject to the availability of savings of the respective bureaus/offices/GOCCs, a Staple Food Incentive (SFI) in the maximum amount of 7.2k each to the officials and employees of DTI bureaus, attached agencies and government owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs), in accordance with Rule 10 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules. D.O. No. 79 further provided that in case of disallowance, the employee shall refund the incentive through salary deduction. Consequently, PITC released the total amount of 1.094M as SFI for the year 1998, pursuant to the department order, in favor of its employees. employees. On April 29, 1999, the Resident Auditor of PITC issued a Notice of Suspension disallowing the grant of the SFI and requiring the PITC to submit the approval of such grant by the Department of Budget and

Management, in accordance with Section 12 of RA 6758, or the Salary Standardization Law. PITC appealed to the Director, Corporate Audit Office II, who sustained the disallowance of the SFI. PITC elevated the matter to the COA which affirmed the questioned disallowance because the grant of SFI by PITC was an illegal disbursement of public funds under Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758. Hence, PITC filed the instant petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Whether the disbursement of the SFI by the COA was proper Whether the nullity of the IRR issued by DBM affects the validity of the statutory law HELD: 1. YES. The resolution of the question of law in the case at bar hinges on the interpretation of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758, which was the basis of the COA in denying the grant of SFI to the officers and employees of PITC. It provides  –  Sec. 12.  –   Consolidation of Allowances and Compensation.Allowances, except for representation and transportation allowances; clothing and laundry allowances; subsistence allowance of marine officers and crew on board government vessels and hospital personnel; hazard pay; allowances of foreign services personnel stationed abroad; and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified herein as may be determined by the DBM, shall be deemed included in the standardized salary rates herein prescribed. Such other additional compensation, whether in cash or in kind, being received by incumbents as of July 1, 1989 not integrated into the standardized salary rates shall continue to be authorized.”

“

The Court held that under the first sentence of Section 12, the benefits excluded from the standardized salary rates are the "allowances" or those which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions . It further ruled that the phrase "and such other additional compensation not otherwise specified [in Section 12] as may be determined by the DBM," in the first sentence of Section 12, is a "catch-all-proviso" for benefits in the nature of "allowances" similar to those enumerated. Further reflection on the nature of subject fringe benefits indicates that all of them have one thing in common - they belong to one category of privilege called allowances which are usually granted to officials and employees of the government to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions. If these allowances are consolidated with the standardized rate, then the government official or employee will be compelled to spend his personal funds in attending to his duties. Entitlement to the "financial assistance" under the second sentence of Section 12, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the following requisites  –  (1) the recipients were incumbents when RA 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989; (2) they were in fact, receiving the same, at the time; and (3) such additional compensation is distinct and separate from the specific allowances enumerated in the first sentence of Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758. This is in relation to the non-diminution of pay under Section 17 of R.A. No. 6758, which states: SEC. 17. Salaries of Incumbents.  –  Incumbents of positions presently receiving salaries and additional compensation/fringe benefits including those absorbed from local government units and other emoluments, the aggregate of which exceeds the standardized salary rate as herein prescribed, shall continue to receive such

excess compensation, which shall be referred to as transition allowance. The transition allowance shall be reduced by the amount of salary adjustment that the incumbent shall receive in the future. In the instant case, the Staple Food Incentives was granted under D.O. No. 79 to "help the DTI employees cope with the present economic difficulties, boost their morale and deepen their commitment and dedication to public service." Clearly therefore, the SFI is a financial assistance or a bonus falling under the second sentence of Section 12 and not a payment in consideration of the performance of an official duty. It is not a benefit within the ambit of the first sentence because it was not granted to defray or reimburse the expenses incurred in the performance of their official functions, like representation and transportation allowances, and other benefits of similar nature. Accordingly, in order that the SFI may be allowed, the requisites for the entitlement of benefits fa lling under the second sentence of Section 12 must be established. Unfortunately, there is no evidence on record that the recipients of the SFI were incumbents when R.A. No. 6758 took effect on July 1, 1989 and that they were in fact receiving the same at the time. Hence, no abuse of discretion was committed by COA in disallowing the disbursement of funds for the SFI of PITC. 2. NO. There is no merit in the claim of PITC that R.A. No. 6758, particularly Section 12 thereof is void because DBM-Corporate Compensation Circular No. 10, its implementing rules, was nullified in the case of De Jesus v. Commission on Audit , for lack of publication. The basis of COA in disallowing the grant of SFI was Section 12 of R.A. No. 6758 and not DBM-CCC No. 10. Moreover, the nullity of DBM-CCC No. 10, will not aff ect the validity of R.A. No. 6758. It is a cardinal rule in statutory construction that statutory provisions control the rules and regulations which may be issued pursuant thereto . Such rules and regulations must be consistent

with and must not defeat the purpose of the statute. The validity of

R.A. No. 6758 should not be made to depend on the validity of its implementing rules. Notwithstanding the validity of the disallowance by the COA, however, the officers and employees of PITC can not be obliged to refund the SFI received by them in good faith.